Monitoring The Pulse of The Faculty: Needs Assessment in Faculty Development Programs

Abstract

Although needs assessment is a common and necessary element of faculty development programs, the process never seems to be as easy or as effective as we might like it to be. Sadly, the literature is relatively weak in this all‐important area of responsibility. Such a problem, no doubt, is due in part to the individual environment of each institution. Based on a presentation at the 1995 POD Conference, this article reviews a number of institutional approaches to gathering data from faculty, which may suggest some options for the reader.

Program Assessments: Success Strategies for Three Canadian Teaching Centers

“…This includes the frequency of conducting program assessments, the time allowed for feedback, the duration of the assessment process, and the immediacy of reporting back to the clients and stakeholders. Program assessments should be conducted frequently and in a timely manner (Travis et al 1996). Frequency, such as every 3 to 5 years, increases the potential of capturing the changing needs of clients.…”

“…Data collected at each of the three institutions relied on various methods: secondary data from workshop assessments, open-and closed-ended questionnaires, online survey forms, and focus groups. Although the simplest and most cost-effective approach is the survey (Travis et al 1996), multiple data collection is the most desirable approach for obtaining the best information possible (Owen and Rogers 1999;Travis et al 1996) with cross-sectional representation in order to measure "current practices, opinions, and attitudes" concerning teaching (Milloy and Brooke 2004). Each of the three institutions relied on more than one type of data collection (i.e., survey, focus groups, individual faculty comments, inside and outside consultants), resulting in a broader perspective leading to changes in programming and format.…”

“…Third, as each institution has different approaches to conducting faculty development, the procedure for doing program assessments should reflect this variability (Travis et al 1996). Data collected at each of the three institutions relied on various methods: secondary data from workshop assessments, open-and closed-ended questionnaires, online survey forms, and focus groups.…”

“…The lack of expertise in program assessments combined with the ambiguous program assessment terminology; unanticipated time constraints to develop, run, and analyze program assessments; and potential unrealistic definition of project scope as either too broad or too narrow can make conducting an adequate program assessment quite challenging for both the novice and experienced faculty developer (Chism and Szabo 1996;Csete, April 1996;Engleberg 1991;Harnish and Wild 1992;Knowlton and Ratliffe 1992;Milloy and Brooke 2004;Travis et al 1996). A recent survey of faculty developers found that most (36 out of 38) did not employ any particular program assessment model to shape their assessment process (Hamilton 2007).…”

“…Although program assessments are highly rated and valued in the literature, a lack of resources and information on how to design assessments specific to faculty development offices challenges most faculty developers (Milloy and Brooke 2004;Plank et al 2005;Travis et al 1996). The lack of expertise in program assessments combined with the ambiguous program assessment terminology; unanticipated time constraints to develop, run, and analyze program assessments; and potential unrealistic definition of project scope as either too broad or too narrow can make conducting an adequate program assessment quite challenging for both the novice and experienced faculty developer (Chism and Szabo 1996;Csete, April 1996;Engleberg 1991;Harnish and Wild 1992;Knowlton and Ratliffe 1992;Milloy and Brooke 2004;Travis et al 1996).…”